The Life of Jesus | Page 6

this Gospel
is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles.[2] Now, the
author of the Acts is a companion of St. Paul,[3] a title which applies to
Luke exactly.[4] I know that more than one objection may be raised
against this reasoning; but one thing, at least, is beyond doubt, namely,
that the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts was a man of the
second apostolic generation, and that is sufficient for our object. The
date of this Gospel can moreover be determined with much precision
by considerations drawn from the book itself. The twenty-first chapter
of Luke, inseparable from the rest of the work, was certainly written
after the siege of Jerusalem, and but a short time after.[5] We are here,
then, upon solid ground; for we are concerned with a work written
entirely by the same hand, and of the most perfect unity.
[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1-4.]

[Footnote 2: Acts i. 1. Compare Luke i. 1-4.]
[Footnote 3: From xvi. 10, the author represents himself as
eye-witness.]
[Footnote 4: 2 Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24; Col. iv. 14. The name of
Lucas (contraction of _Lucanus_) being very rare, we need not fear one
of those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions of
criticism relative to the New Testament.]
[Footnote 5: Verses 9, 20, 24, 28, 32. Comp. xxii. 36.]
The Gospels of Matthew and Mark have not nearly the same stamp of
individuality. They are impersonal compositions, in which the author
totally disappears. A proper name written at the head of works of this
kind does not amount to much. But if the Gospel of Luke is dated,
those of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for it is certain that the third
Gospel is posterior to the first two and exhibits the character of a much
more advanced compilation. We have, besides, on this point, an
excellent testimony from a writer of the first half of the second
century--namely, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a grave man, a man of
traditions, who was all his life seeking to collect whatever could be
known of the person of Jesus.[1] After having declared that on such
matters he preferred oral tradition to books, Papias mentions two
writings on the acts and words of Christ: First, a writing of Mark, the
interpreter of the apostle Peter, written briefly, incomplete, and not
arranged in chronological order, including narratives and discourses,
([Greek: lechthenta ê prachthenta],) composed from the information
and recollections of the apostle Peter; second, a collection of sentences
([Greek: logia]) written in Hebrew[2] by Matthew, "and which each
one has translated as he could." It is certain that these two descriptions
answer pretty well to the general physiognomy of the two books now
called "Gospel according to Matthew," "Gospel according to
Mark"--the first characterized by its long discourses; the second, above
all, by anecdote--much more exact than the first upon small facts, brief
even to dryness, containing few discourses, and indifferently composed.
That these two works, such as we now read them, are absolutely similar
to those read by Papias, cannot be sustained: Firstly, because the

writings of Matthew were to Papias solely discourses in Hebrew, of
which there were in circulation very varying translations; and, secondly,
because the writings of Mark and Matthew were to him profoundly
distinct, written without any knowledge of each other, and, as it seems,
in different languages. Now, in the present state of the texts, the
"Gospel according to Matthew" and the "Gospel according to Mark"
present parallel parts so long and so perfectly identical, that it must be
supposed, either that the final compiler of the first had the second under
his eyes, or vice versa, or that both copied from the same prototype.
That which appears the most likely, is, that we have not the entirely
original compilations of either Matthew or Mark; but that our first two
Gospels are versions in which the attempt is made to fill up the gaps of
the one text by the other. Every one wished, in fact, to possess a
complete copy. He who had in his copy only discourses, wished to have
narratives, and vice versa. It is thus that "the Gospel according to
Matthew" is found to have included almost all the anecdotes of Mark,
and that "the Gospel according to Mark" now contains numerous
features which come from the Logia of Matthew. Every one, besides,
drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. This tradition was so
far from having been exhausted by the Gospels, that the Acts of the
Apostles and the most ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus
which appear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess.
[Footnote 1: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl._, iii. 39. No doubt whatever can